How exactly did I 'go off' - it's very hard to argue with people who change their arguments all the time - it's actually a waste of time. Nothing anyone says can change your mind - unless they are wearing a robe that is - your mind stops working the moment someone says something about your church - and you take a position in the trenches.

All you say is that I'm a fundamentalist, stereotyping and so on - well I'm sorry - but if you take it all so personal and see anyone with a different opinion as an enemy... this discussion is over - take krellin and go burn books that you don't agree with - hopefully this will give you comfort and help fill this void inside. Unfortunately I don't have it in me and can't relate to your needs to tell others what they should believe in to not be fundamentalist.

Btw, our definitions on what is a stareotype and a fundamentalist differ a lot - I was under the impression you are a native speaker? :) I really did not know a fundamentalist is a person who refuses to share someone elses religios beliefs when told to do so - I thought it's the other way around - clearly my mistake - should buy one of those dictionaries that tell you what words mean and what to think...

Btw, let me tell you a story - I live in a place that was ruled by a communist party twenty years ago. This party had monopoly on theology, banned and persecuted everything else. They had a lot of good ideas - equality and so on - but some bad thing also happened. Still the party was very popular, attracting millions in it's ranks. Being a party member was like a 'get out if jail free' card. With time it became something you almost inherit - and even more people rushed to join in and be part of thus sacred organization. It was the most corrupt thing - filling the void left by banishing all other religious forms quite successfully.

It is very hard for me to find much differences between how the communists operated and how the Catholic church operates...

@ivo

So here are some examples of stereotypes:


“Some people don't need a superstitious fear in order to be civil”

We religious people are only civil because of our superstitions and fear?

"your mind stops working the moment someone says something about your church - and you take a position in the trenches."

We stop thinking when our church is mentioned?

@ivo (again)

"take krellin and go burn books that you don't agree with"

Hey I’m an English teacher! I spend most of my time griping that people aren’t nice enough to books. You didn’t know that about me though did you? I wonder why?

“Well, it's one of the few things that actually do work in such organizations.”

Which organizations are these that response to few things other than peer pressure? What are the other things by the way? Letters to the diocese? A talk with the bishop, leadership council, etc?

@ivo
you said (to obiwan)

“sorry man, your views are not moderate - you're a believer and want everyone to be”

Obiwan! Obiwan’s not a moderate! Did you even read his posts? Okay, quote where he has ever tried to convert anyone to any religion. I dare you. ;-)

This is how all religions (the institutions behind them at least) operate.

Again this is a stereotype. You simply do not know how all religious institutions operate.

“The Churches need to evolve and stop hanging on scraps and being ok with everything that serves them.”

…and when presented with evidence that they do you were silent.

"our definitions on what is a stereotype and a fundamentalist differ a lot"


Perhaps it’s because I think a stereotype is when you believe something about a group based upon a preconceived notion that may or may not be true for some of them. I suggested that we talk about our differing opinions about what a fundamentalist is and you didn’t come to the table to discuss that one.

Look ivo

I do not consider you the enemy. You're just a different person wiht a different perspective. I do challenge your notions of organized religion, and it's right for me to do that. Some undoubtedly behave just as you suggest and will not be around after a while. On the other hand you simply should, imo, write off every religious institution because one reminds you of the communist party. There was a Protestant Reformation long before the Communist Revolution. There are also many differences in the RCC and many communist parties. One chief difference being that the RCC doesn't generally show up with tanks ;-) Seriously though, I truly believe that you should look more closely at religious institutions if you are going to spend time criticizing them. "Know your enemy; know yourself" and all that, right?

**simply shouldn't**

I'm done talking - nothing gets across - obviously your criteria for judjing the RCC is that they are not so bad because some other governments and political regimes van be just as bad - and I'd agree to that.

I've given up arguing with devout communists a long time ago - or Muslim findamentalists for that matter - can't say I'm surprised you jumped straigh into the same category - happens every time.

Btw, you must be some teacher - do you also tell your students that if they don't agree with your beliefs this makes them fundamentalists??? Or that it is fine to do bad things as long as there are worse offenders? :)

How can someone be so deluded and hypocritical is beyond me.

Obiwan.....!!!!!!

Stop being so friggin crazy man. You just theorized that the cause for the global turmoil of the twentieth century, the wars, the rise of facism, communism, etc. was because some pesky atheists ruined the holy glue between the nations of Europe and caused soem sort of unprecedented calamity!? What the fudge?

Clearly, you haven't looked very carefully at European history, or the history of the world even. By most accounts, the twentieth century, as bloody as it was, ranks as one of humanity's most peaceful centurys (measuring the number of people engaged in an killed in warfare as a proportion of the total population). Humans have been perpetually warlike, and states more so.

There has never been anything close to resembling peaceful unity and brotherhood among Europeans since the fall of the Roman Empire, and even that peace did not extend beyond the marching ability of the Roman Legionaires. The Christian Church has been splintered since the years immediately following it's inception, and holy wars long dominated the continent. Your notions of 'the void" being central to everything in the world are once again grounded in fantasy land.

Obviously the question of whether God exists or not has deep and serious implications for the psyches of many millions (billions even?) of people around the globe today, and many millions (billions?) in the past. But to overstate the point so dramatically and incorrectly is to melodramatically do a disservice to the debate.

And a final point. Have you ever listened to Dawkins speak or debate? How can you say he adds 'nothing' to the discussion of religion? Maybe you hate him because of his arrogance, fine, maybe you hate him because you think he is dead wrong... but don't accuse him of not having anything interesting or relevant to say. That would be... well, evidently wrong, mate.

And once again, you accuse atheists of being 100% certain that they are correct in thier world view and that nothing else could possibly exist except out limited conception of science as it currently exists. That is wrong, no atheists think that, and I once again encourage you to provide even a single example (cite it if possible ^^) of an atheist doing so.
(If you don't mean to accuse atheists of the above, I am willign to withdraw my charge ^^)
-----------------------------

Secondly, regarding the little spat between Ivo and Crazy Anglican.

Ivo... Crazy Anglican didn't call you a fundamentalist. He simply said that your arguments are based on assumptions and stereotypes (which is true) that are unfounded (possibly true). Why not engage with his claims of the RCC evolving, with the nature of believers being thinkers, with the difference between churches etc. instead of just labeling him deluded? He has clearly put more thought into his position than most people on this thread. ^^

I'm not saying you are wrong per se, but I don't think you are winning any points from me in terms of argumentative persuasiveness.

Also, out of curiosity. With the Communist Apparatus gone (mostly ;)) what kind of influence does the Orthodox Church wield in the new Bulgaria?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, regarding the Catholic Church.

In its current state, there is little in that institution that is in any way redeeming to my eyes.
From not letting women be priests, to the 'primordial' dogma that fills the unworthy pages of the catechism, to the hiding of child abuse, to the prevention of any kind of safe sex education...

It's pretty f-d up. That being said, the church of today is better than the church of yesteryear, and is probably still on some sort of grand journey of improvement. Great. Amazing. But count me out. I'm going to go have some fun and not feel guilty about it, thank you very much.

@FS - you clearly have not read back to the beginning if the discussion. Obiwan and CA said that people who don't accept that their God can exist are just like fundamentalists. The moment they retreat from this absurd statement I'll stop arguing with them.

Btw, which exactly of my arguments is based on an assumption - please just give me one example!

As for Bulgaria - the Church is trying to regain power but after 50 years under another dogmatic regime I guess it's hard for them to get much followers. People here have not had the luxury to live in a free society and take it for granted, so we're kind of suspicious of billshit artists coming to your door and asking you to believe in them :)

I gave you like ten, but what you think I'm saying and what I'm saying are two entirely different things. I think that you're confusing part of what obiwan was saying with my argument. I did say that on the extreme sides of the issue you have people who are rigid and unyeilding and obiwan classified them both as "fundamentalists". I asked that we find a common definiton for the term because I thought we were running into trouble with that particular term. It does have more than one definition. One is anyone who holds rigidly to a set of precepte or ideals which I suppose can be stretched to arguments (an atheist can be rigid and refuse to listen to other points of view in exactly the same way that a theist can, that's all).

Well, learn to express yourself properly then - and, no, I'm not interestedin discussing the word fundamentalist. I know what it means - so should you - especially if you're a teacher :P

Plus, you did compare the RCC to corporations, governments and communists - if these are the standards you hold for a religious organization I think my main point (organized religion being no better than a corrupt regime) had been proven and agreed on - so I'll retreat from this discussion to spend some time filling the Void with Diplomacy together with my fundamentalist (as per your dictionary) friends :)

Perhaps we can all come together in mutual suspicion and dislike of centralised power with no oversight, a self given mandate, and a compulsion to never admit wrongdoing?

I mean, that applies to the RCC, it applies to corporations, it applies to Communist governments... hell, it applies to my School's head office.
If that statement ceased to apply to the Roman Catholic Church, than many of my criticisms will cease to exist. I just find it funny, Crazy Anglican, that you can feel comfortable with that (un)holy institution.

It does seem that everyone, who commented, understood me except you.

The parting shot was a stretch thouhg, so not I don't agree with your main point. There is a huge difference between recognizing churches as organizations and agreeing that they are corrupt. Like Friendly Sword said, your argument is still based on assumption.

Sorry Friendly Sword, I'll retract the quote.

Hehe, if only you could actually say what assumption that is - but you can't :)

Unless you think that me saying RCC us corrupt is an assumption - which it is not - you just qualify all facts and events you don't like as exceptions - so that you can keep up the clean image in your head.

"Perhaps we can all come together in mutual suspicion and dislike of centralised power with no oversight, a self given mandate, and a compulsion to never admit wrongdoing?"

If you eliminate the no oversight thing you're talking about my two and a half year old.

Hmm let me see...

You said "organized religion being no better than a corrupt regime". Unless you have knowledge of the manner in which organized religion (all of them) work, then you are merely assuming that those you know nothing of work similarly. So yeah, it's an assumption and a stereotype.

lol

my three year old too :-)

Ivo, one problematic... perhaps not assumption, but claim you seem to be making, has been that religious institutions are corrupt, and that because of all the evils in the past we'd be better off without them (despite the comparatively insufficient good works).

If this was indeed your claim, how can you apply that to religious organizations (some Christian, some other) that have totally different identities and connections form the Catholic one? Honestly mate, it isn't so simple.

Thanks CA. :)

You folks have children? ><

Honestly, they would probably make more palatable papal authorities than the current lot.

"Your holiness, we have discovered another... incident. What shall we do this time?"
"Gah"
"Shall we shuffle the priest off to a different church with a private reprimand?"
"Gah! Gah!"
"Um, am I to take this as righteous anger towards that particular course of action then?"
"Gah!"
"..."
"Baba! Gggg..."
"OK your holiness, we have publicly stripped the priest of his powers and offered him up to prosecution"
"zzzz"

On second thought, your children can no doubt express themselves much better than "gah"... um think about that being an example of an infant Pope. ^^

@Ivo - Here is where you are flawed in your thinking, put in as simple of terms as I can.

You say (not a quote) the Catholic church is bad. The Catholic church is an organized religion. Therefore organized religion is bad and we should do away with it. The problem is the Catholic church is *one* small organized religion (biggest single view amongst the Christian faiths, but small compared to Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and all of Protestantism). So with a limited sample (Catholicism) of abuse, you have declared all of organized religion bad, despite the fact that these same abuses aren't found systemically in any of the Protestant faiths that I've heard of nor in Buddhism or Hinduism (I won't speak for Islam for I don't know enough to speak with any intelligence on it).

In other words... One rotten apple has spoiled the whoel bunch in your mind so you'll throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I never said I want to close the RCC, or any other Church - please stop misquoting me to the point of blatant lying. I said they should not be blindly supported and it's the responsibility of their followers to require some accountability. You never agreed to that - and just kept saying that some goverents are no better.

Draugnar "you said (not a quote) ..." . Hmm, let me try this in reverse - I remeber you said you're stupid and to ignore you (not a quote)"

Is this really how you people argue - making up stuff???

Btw, in no way should the Protestant movement be compared to the RCC - as you rightfully noted their history is different - maybe it has something to do with how they operate and think. Guess that's asking too much of the RCC.